I had been hoping for Mawrth Vallis, since it appears to be the oldest, and the mineralogy seems clearest (at least to this non-geologist). Any of the sites would be great for science, though, and Gale would probably be the most scenic.

The Nature article talks about the sedimentologists, who favored the three crater sites, and the mineralogists who favored Mawrth. Perhaps the 2018 rover, will visit a mineralogy site. I think Mawrth may be too far north for that mission, but there are other interesting sites being considered. If MSL strikes organics at Gale, we may get two rovers to the same location.

Although it appears to be about mineralogists vs geomorphologists all over again, this time there is abundant evidence that the geomorphologically interesting site of Gale also includes interesting mineralogy.

"Mawrth Vallis has been ruled out, even as they acknowledge that its lack of scenic vistas — important in drawing the public into a mission — could be a major failing."

That's quite a strong statement. Did this really carry any weight in the selection process? If so, it would be saying a lot about the public impact the MERs have achieved. That's something to cheer certainly, but at the same time it's rather sobering. Much as I love the vistas, I find myself wondering how far I'd want planetary exploration to move in the direction of crowd pleasing.

The conclusion of the 5th landing site meeting was this - ALL the sites were scientifically interesting and all met the engineering requirements. There was no scientific consensus that puts one above the other. So - did aesthetics play into it? They were certainly mentioned at the landing site meeting - and all other things being equal, I don't know why they shouldn't. If you have four safe, interesting landing sites that the science community can't choose between, then why not go to the most spectacular one?

One good side-effect of Gale - it's a very very low landing site. This could offer lots of spare time margin for EDL.

Much as I love the vistas, I find myself wondering how far I'd want planetary exploration to move in the direction of crowd pleasing.

Science obviously has to come first - but I personally found the Phoenix "vistas" utterly soulless. Flat arctic, as far as the camera could see. With a nod to The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu, it really was "grim up north".

Fair enough, but just about everything else about the Phoenix mission was absolutely fascinating AND important. Although I too was disappointed with the terrain, I wouldnt want to exchange a visible mesa or two for everything else that mission gave us.

Plus - if it had been a rover, really interesting terrain would have been within a reasonable traverse anyway.

Although it appears to be about mineralogists vs geomorphologists all over again, this time there is abundant evidence that the geomorphologically interesting site of Gale also includes interesting mineralogy.

All four sites have abundantly interesting mineralogy. I believe the difference is that with Mawrth, it was more obvious that the clays, etc. were formed in place. The concern I read about the other sites was that the minerals may have been carried in and may not represent substantial deposits. However, I'm not a geologist! So these thoughts really should be read as a question. Any geologists care to comment on whether this is actually a concern?

However, my real reason for favoring Mawrth was that it was the oldest of the sites, and sites like it may be the only records of the earliest processes on a world with a (then) significant atmosphere and available water. The world's experts on these issues also knew this, and went with a different site, so this was not a compelling argument. So Gale it apparently will be.

Or not. From the same article:"The scientists' endorsement of Gale Crater does not ensure that it will be selected by NASA management. Another site, Eberswalde Crater, which contains a relic river delta and — perhaps — buried evidence of organics in the lakebed deposits into which the river flowed, was ranked a very close second."

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted.
Do not reproduce without permission. Read
here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the
individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer
UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent
of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence
over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.

SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is a project of the Planetary Society
and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep
this forum up and running by contributing
here.